[thedoc (OP)]

I accept that global warming is an known fact and that the answer is a reduction in greenhouse gases and that as a result of the increase of such gases there will be an ever increasing incidence of environmental thermo dynamic meteorological activity across the globe and that the ball is in our court to take positive steps to manage the problem.

My question is: How much will this increased activity, more storms, more wind etc, contribute to a "self healing" effect. In other words will increased environmental activity of itself reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Asked by George Scarfe


                                        Visit the webpage for the podcast in which this question is answered.

[chapter podcast=1001362 track=16.05.17/Naked_Scientists_Show_16.05.17_1005170.mp3]  ...or Listen to the Answer[/chapter] or [download as MP3]

[evan_au]

reduce the CO₂ in the atmosphere

If you reduce CO₂ in the atmosphere, it has to go somewhere.

• At present, a lot of it is dissolving in seawater, making the sea more acidic. There are fears that the increased acidity will affect the hard skeletons of shellfish and corals.
  
• Limestone deposits take CO₂ out of circulation. Limestone often comes from the slow growth of coral reefs (but see above). Meanwhile, we are busy digging up old limestone, and burning it for cement.
  
• Trees absorb CO₂, but we are busy cutting down and/or burning forests
  
• You can pump it underground, but this takes energy, so it is expensive.

How much will this increased activity, more storms, more wind etc, contribute to a "self healing" effect.

Increased storms would blow the CO₂ around more, but it doesn't transform it into another form. Increased turbulence on the sea surface will tend to accelerate the sea coming to equilibrium with increased atmospheric CO₂.

[alancalverd]

Most global warming stories are nonsense (e.g the frequency of severe hurricanes has actually decreased over the last 100 years: what has changed is the human population of coastal areas, hence the same hurricane now does a lot more damage).

However it is quite clear that nature does indeed abstract CO2 from the atmosphere. Sedimentary carbonaceous rocks (e.g. most of southern and eastern England) were once living creatures that extracted zillions of tons of CO2 from the sea (and thus ultimately from the air) umpteen billion years ago, so there must have been a heck of a lot more of it around in the past, and far from a disaster, the result is the very pleasant planet on which we now live.   

If you look closely at the fine structure of the Mauna Loa CO2 and temperature graph, it's pretty obvious that the annual peak CO2 level is in the summer, when anthropogenic production is at its lowest. Water, by far the most important greenhouse gas, controls atmospheric temperature, and atmospheric temperature determines insect activity, which is what converts plant material into CO2. 

[puppypower]

The earth has a carbon cycle. The earth naturally produces about 150 billions tons of CO2 per year. Humans generate about 5 billion tons per year. The CO2 does not build up at the rate of 155 billions tons per year in the atmosphere. One might assume this based on the 150 year dwell times that are often quoted. The reason is, the earth absorbs about 150 billion plus tons each year making the dwell time of newly produced CO2 closer to one year in the bigger picture of things.

Below are three graphs of the solubility of CO2 and methane in water. The first two are for CO2 as a function of temperature and pressure. The third is just for methane as function of temperature. What this shows is CO2 and methane are more soluble in cold water. This graph implies that the colder regions of the earth can absorb more CO2 and methane than the warmer regions. The pressure diagram of CO2 implies as we get deeper in the oceans, where the oceans get cooler and gain pressure, CO2 solubility will increase even further. Also, as storms gets larger and reach higher into the atmosphere, where it is colder, they can absorb more CO2.

If the polar caps were to melt, this will expose more cold water surface area, absorbing more CO2 compared to the north pole covered in ice and snow. The melting of the pole will reverse the CO2 due to more CO2 solubility. The earth will get cooler and caps will rebuild.

[Tim the Plumber]

George Scarfe asked the Naked Scientists:
   I accept that global warming is an known fact

The world has warmed up a bit. The future is not certain. The lack of warming since the hockey stick graph came out in 1998 says that the link between increased CO2 and increased temperatures is very weak at most.

 

and that the answer is a reduction in greenhouse gases

What for? What do you think is goig to be the problem?

 

and that as a result of the increase of such gases there will be an ever increasing incidence of environmental thermo dynamic meteorological activity across the globe

The amount of storms has been at a lower than average level during this warmish period. The models which predict increased storms can't manage to hindcast or to predict the weather or to get the climate predictions right. There have been warmer periods than now and they don't show increased storm activity.

and that the ball is in our court to take positive steps to manage the problem.
My question is:- How much will this increased activity, more storms, more wind etc, contribute to a "self healing" effect. In other words will increased environmental activity of itself reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

The rate of CO2 absorbsion by the earth is influenced by the availibility of CO2 to be processed into plankton in the world's oceans. This then causes increased deposition of limestone onto the sea floor. I have come across a figure for terrestrial increased fertility of plants of 11% due to the increased availibility of CO2. CO2 (sorry can't work out how to do subscript and can't be bothered) is plant food. It's what the plants use to make more plant.

Increaed CO2 and increased temperatures both supecharge the circle of life. More life is a good thing.

[puppypower]

The solubility of CO2 in water increases as the water temperature does down and as the pressure of the water goes up. This means CO2 can be absorbed better in colder ocean water, which means near the poles. Co2 also being absorbed slowly with depth of water driven by entropy.

As the north polar cap melts, more and more cold liquid water surface area is exposed for CO2 absorption. This might explain why the CO2 emissions are not increasing the temperature, as much as the models predict. We are adding more CO2 while expanding the CO2 cycle. 

If ocean levels rises, and more water spills over the land, then there is now also more surface area of water on the surface of the earth to absorb CO2. The result is a natural reversal, where the earth will absorb CO2, cool and the water will recede and freeze again at the poles. This allows CO2 to build up, so the earth doesn't get too cool. Water is the great moderating of climate.

One question I have asked myself from the beginning is, why is global warming science one of the few areas of science that is so political. You don't see the two extreme sides of the political spectrum debating the periodic table. The periodic table does not incite the emotions of politics in quite the same way. Why is that? I would guess climate change is a form of hybrid science; emotional science. If you use statistics, then you also use black boxes. This is where bogeymen hide. The periodic table does not incite emotions, due to no black boxes for bogeyman to hide, allowing a more objective form of science. The emotion being used is connected to fear. Nobody is afraid of the periodic table since there is not black box to sneak out of.

When there is a bogey man; fear, people, from amateurs to laymen want answers, so they can feel less afraid. They will accept almost anything if it promises them safety from the threat. The drowning man does not care, what you throw him for a life preserver, as long as it can float.

Since the majority of the laymen are not experts, science can use some creative liberty in terms of life preserver being offered for floatation. It can get it wrong, but this will not impact their faith, as long as you try to help. I care about the assumed threat of the bogeymen being induced, and I am also promising safety. I proposed a passive way that does to need the services of middlemen, to make you feel safer. 

Extras:

Picture news stories, about an airline crash. There will often be so much media focus and coverage, some people will get the idea that the bogey man is knocking planes out of the sky, left and right. The over coverage is induced so people will stay tuned and watch more commercials. The reason the bogeyman appears is this unexplainable at first; random and therefore uses a black box. Everyone knows you can throw snake eyes, many times in a row, so maybe the bogey man is out for many such disasters.

Once the fear is induced, people will wonder why the government is not doing more. The government may need to act, after the fact, to appease fear of the bogeyman. Nobody acts ahead of time, because there is no such thing as the bogey man ready to make planes fall like flies through a flame.

Say one person has found an angle where they can turn this fear of the bogey man, into dollars or political power. It is to their best interest to keep the hype up, and not allow the bogey man to go back to sleep. Anyone who suggests a passive, non money or power solution to the bogeyman is a quack, since there are sheep to shear, and such people may divert the herd so it goes back to feeding, all scattered and harder to shear. 

Hybrid science that make use of emotions, tends to add lots of middlemen. Al Gore alone has made billions off this bogey man. All of his original predictions from 10 years ago never really panned out, but it does not matter to the fearful, since the bogeyman is still around. Gore is commended for trying  to help. If the drowning man is being saved by a moron, who throws things that sink, it is hard to be mad at him, since he is trying so hard to help.

What the drowning person does not realize, is the water is not too deep ,and they can stand and save themselves. This will require self reliance, which is not taught to the political side that fears the bogey man the most. They will ball up and wish to be saved. If you try to help, it does not matter if you fail. It is all caring. Words mean more that actions.

Climate change is a different. Climate change happens all the time. Look at record books for all of the dozens of weather statistics, from cold to hot, rain to draught, high to low pressure, consecutive days of rain or snow, most and least tree rings, etc., these are always changing in part or whole. The current focus is the one climate plane that falls from the sky, examined with a focus of attention, that the rest of the data will not get. This hype sells commercials, while others have learned to take advantage of the movement of the herd down the chute.

Those who believe in the disaster scenarios, could have saved a lot of fear over the past decade. You could have skipped ten years and start today and be in the same spot. Now you have less fur and your wool is for sale.

[JoeBrown]

One question I have asked myself from the beginning is, why is global warming science one of the few areas of science that is so political. You don't see the two extreme sides of the political spectrum debating the periodic table. The periodic table does not incite the emotions of politics in quite the same way. Why is that?

People have habitual tendencies.

In the recent past:

• Just over 100 years ago the first plane was invented.
• 300 years ago electricity was only witnessed in lightning and other static discharges.
• The combustion engine didn't exist 400 years ago.

Today:

• 100,000 flights everyday
• 19,000 1+ megawatt generators (huge motors running 24/7)
• 1+ billion cars on the road, daily

We're addicted to fossil fuels.  Life without 'em would not be the same.

Alarmists - recognize this change in human activity will cause issues with climate.

Deniers - won't to give 'em up, not w/out a fight.

Realists - encourage change. It's going to be drawn out fight by the looks of it.

Especially when you consider how few ppl have enormously profited by managing flow of fossils burnt.  They have increased political clout and won't likely relinquish that control, not w/out fight.

[JoeBrown]

If you can believe in the evolution of the Earth...  Things change, which seems like the only real constant of life.

Once upon a time, the Earth's atmosphere was more like that of the planet Venus.  Mostly CO² for atmosphere.  When early life got a foothold, the simple forms of life sequestered much of the C and produced O² we appreciate.

The earliest life forms were only little tiny microbes. Took a lot of them a fairly long time to change the atmosphere.  Life forms that consume other life forms are more complex creatures, so they couldn't have evolved until; there was an abundance of food to consume and it probably took a while for that change to occur.  Change happens.
 
We believe the earliest life occurred in the oceans, but over time some crawled out, some floated out and some may have flew out.  Changes continue to happen.  It seems that in complex life forms, change is gradual compared to that simple forms.

There are a couple requirements for all life.  1. a food is necessary.  2. environment must be hospitable.  As long as these two requirements are maintained, life persist, when the environment changes, some life may adapt and persist, while others may not and cease.

These and other processes have changed the temperature and climate of Earth quite a few times over the 4 billion year history of "our" Earth.

There are many life forms today that sequester C and release O².  There are many the reverse that process.

One way to look at it is this:  There are two classes of organisms, both contain a lot of different species. One form converts CO² to C and O² and another (like us) reverse that process.  We're highly dependent on the 1st.  But we have a lot of machines that burn fossils.  It's kinda hard to relate to it, but humans are outpacing the natural order, by multiple orders of magnitude.

The fossils we burn, were once captured C and released O².  Those fossils did their job over the course of their lifetime, which made our life possible.  By burning fossils, in one instant, we undo what it took their whole lifetime to achieve...  In theory, we will not be able to continue to survive, if this trend continues.

[Tim the Plumber]

One question I have asked myself from the beginning is, why is global warming science one of the few areas of science that is so political. You don't see the two extreme sides of the political spectrum debating the periodic table. The periodic table does not incite the emotions of politics in quite the same way. Why is that?

People have habitual tendencies.

In the recent past:

• Just over 100 years ago the first plane was invented.
• 300 years ago electricity was only witnessed in lightning and other static discharges.
• The combustion engine didn't exist 400 years ago.

Today:

• 100,000 flights everyday
• 19,000 1+ megawatt generators (huge motors running 24/7)
• 1+ billion cars on the road, daily

We're addicted to fossil fuels.  Life without 'em would not be the same.

Alarmists - recognize this change in human activity will cause issues with climate.

Deniers - won't to give 'em up, not w/out a fight.

Realists - encourage change. It's going to be drawn out fight by the looks of it.

Especially when you consider how few ppl have enormously profited by managing flow of fossils burnt.  They have increased political clout and won't likely relinquish that control, not w/out fight.

I have not come across any deniers who are not nuts. They are very few and far between generally.

There are lots of Skeptics. I am one.

You show how fast human society is advancing. How long do you expect us to still be using fossil fuels for? How long do you think it will take for a better power supply to come along?

Soon, within the next couple of decades solar power will be cheaper than coal power. At which point we stop digging.

Today 10 million people per year die of lack of food due to the use of food as fuel. Do you think that this will in any way spped up the day at which solar becomes better than coal?

[Tim the Plumber]

If you can believe in the evolution of the Earth...  [Blah, blah, blah....]

The fossils we burn, were once captured C and released O².  Those fossils did their job over the course of their lifetime, which made our life possible.  By burning fossils, in one instant, we undo what it took their whole lifetime to achieve...  In theory, we will not be able to continue to survive, if this trend continues.

This is supposed to be a science forum not a religious rant platform.

[chris]

The earth naturally produces about 150 billions tons of CO2 per year. Humans generate about 5 billion tons per year.

I'm not sure where you have got these figures from, but they are quite wrong.

The anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions amount to about 35 billion tonnes per year. Volcanoes and other natural events are nowhere near this amount. This reference might be helpful:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181810200070X

[Tim the Plumber]

The earth naturally produces about 150 billions tons of CO2 per year. Humans generate about 5 billion tons per year.

I'm not sure where you have got these figures from, but they are quite wrong.

The antropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions amount to about 35 billion tonnes per year. Volcanoes and other natural events are nowhere near this amount. This reference might be helpful:

Maybe he was using this one from NASA;

not allowed to post a link at all. Google the carbon cycle.

It says 5.5 Gt/year.

You will have to delete the []. I am not allowed to post links [in a science forum??!!!!]

[JoeBrown]

I pulled numbers from a climate change denying site.  My bad, but figured it was an easy way to err on the conservative side.  []

All the numbers I've seen, seem astronomical.  There's no average human experience with which I can fathom to relate to them.  I imagine there's considerable fluctuation between reality and estimation, so I went conservative.  I apologize for not seeking more accurate estimations.

The point I endeavored, remains.  We produce a lot of CO₂ and the Earth is warming.  There is correlation to increases or because of them, debatable to a degree.

It's also pretty apparent the more water that evaporates form the oceans, the more water rains back down.  I guess those increases have correlation or be "cause and effect", should we debate them as well?

[Tim the Plumber]

I pulled numbers from a climate change denying site.  My bad, but figured it was an easy way to err on the conservative side.  []

All the numbers I've seen, seem astronomical.  There's no average human experience with which I can fathom to relate to them.  I imagine there's considerable fluctuation between reality and estimation, so I went conservative.  I apologize for not seeking more accurate estimations.

The point I endeavored, remains.  We produce a lot of CO₂ and the Earth is warming.  There is correlation to increases or because of them, debatable to a degree.

It's also pretty apparent the more water that evaporates form the oceans, the more water rains back down.  I guess those increases have correlation or be "cause and effect", should we debate them as well?

Well the earth has warmed a bit. But then it stopped warming some 18 years ago. CO2 has increased much more than the expectations back then and the temperature has  not warmed at all. If there is any cause of increased temperatures due to increased CO2 then it must be very slight.

Why do you think the warmer world is so bad?

[chris]

the earth has warmed a bit. But then it stopped warming some 18 years ago.

I don't think we can state that as a fact can we? We don't anticipate a steady or smooth trajectory for temperature changes because these are natural variables affected by a huge range of factors. Instead and average change over time that is in the positive is predicted. Indeed, if I took annual temperature from 500 years ago and the equivalent for this year, I'd conclude that the average is up.

[Tim the Plumber]

the earth has warmed a bit. But then it stopped warming some 18 years ago.

I don't think we can state that as a fact can we? We don't anticipate a steady or smooth trajectory for temperature changes because these are natural variables affected by a huge range of factors. Instead and average change over time that is in the positive is predicted. Indeed, if I took annual temperature from 500 years ago and the equivalent for this year, I'd conclude that the average is up.

Yes we can state that as a fact. There has been no significant warming in the last 18 years.

As you say there are a lot of natural factors which affect the climate. If your position is that these factors are bigger than human contributions then the whole argument for CAGW falls down. So are natural factors bigger or smaller than human influences?

[JoeBrown]

Yes we can state that as a fact. There has been no significant warming in the last 18 years.

As you say there are a lot of natural factors which affect the climate. If your position is that these factors are bigger than human contributions then the whole argument for CAGW falls down. So are natural factors bigger or smaller than human influences?

The "hiatus" purported doesn't exist.  The amount of data being collected changes daily.  Because there are a lot of data, we must rely on experts, such as NOAA to aggregate the data.  Because they follow "scientific " principles.  Their findings  may go against our beliefs.  There are more than one body of scientists who can verify the findings.  This is important, because scientific principles require such validation. 

Belief systems, on the other hand, do not require validation, they require faith.
 

[chris]

But then it stopped warming some 18 years ago.

This is not a "fact" because it is in part a prediction about the future. We can't say that the Earth has now indefinitely ceased warming just because the most recent years you look at appear to show a particular trend. This is the point I was trying to make in my previous answer; the average trend is what is important, summed over long periods of time to iron out deficiencies in data and anomalies, up or down...

[Tim the Plumber]

Yes we can state that as a fact. There has been no significant warming in the last 18 years.

As you say there are a lot of natural factors which affect the climate. If your position is that these factors are bigger than human contributions then the whole argument for CAGW falls down. So are natural factors bigger or smaller than human influences?

The "hiatus" purported doesn't exist.  The amount of data being collected changes daily.  Because there are a lot of data, we must rely on experts, such as NOAA to aggregate the data.  Because they follow "scientific " principles.  Their findings  may go against our beliefs.  There are more than one body of scientists who can verify the findings.  This is important, because scientific principles require such validation. 

Belief systems, on the other hand, do not require validation, they require faith.
 

Actual datasets tend to show that there has been no significant warming since the hockey stick came out in 1998. Whatever your cherry picked graph has been squeezed to look like.

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/03-hadcrut4.png

But to try to keep this almost on topic is there any chance you can actually answer my question;

As you say there are a lot of natural factors which affect the climate. If your position is that these factors are bigger than human contributions then the whole argument for CAGW falls down. So are natural factors bigger or smaller than human influences?[2]

[Tim the Plumber]

Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 13/03/2016 09:11:31

    But then it stopped warming some 18 years ago.

But then it stopped warming some 18 years ago.

This is not a "fact" because it is in part a prediction about the future. We can't say that the Earth has now indefinitely ceased warming just because the most recent years you look at appear to show a particular trend. This is the point I was trying to make in my previous answer; the average trend is what is important, summed over long periods of time to iron out deficiencies in data and anomalies, up or down...

It is a fact. That it might restart warming or might cool in the future is not part of the statement.

What do you think the top of a graph looks like?